Google Tests A Software That Judges Hollywood's Portrayal of Women 321
Slashdot reader theodp writes: Aside from it being hosted in a town without a movie theater, the 2016 Bentonville Film Festival was also unusual in that it required all entrants to submit "film scripts and downloadable versions of the film" for judgment by "the team at Google and USC", apparently part of a larger Google-funded research project with USC Engineering "to develop a computer science tool that could quickly and efficiently assess how women are represented in films"...
Fest reports noted that representatives of Google and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy appeared in a "Reel vs. Real Diversity" panel presentation at the fest, where the importance of diversity and science to President Obama were discussed, and the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs was blamed in part on how STEM careers have been presented in film and television... In a 2015 report on a Google-sponsored USC Viterbi School of Engineering MacGyver-themed event to promote women in engineering, USC reported that President Obama was kept briefed on efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals of women. As for its own track record, Google recently updated its Diversity page, boasting that "21% of new hires in 2015 were women in tech, compared to 19% of our current population"....
Fest reports noted that representatives of Google and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy appeared in a "Reel vs. Real Diversity" panel presentation at the fest, where the importance of diversity and science to President Obama were discussed, and the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs was blamed in part on how STEM careers have been presented in film and television... In a 2015 report on a Google-sponsored USC Viterbi School of Engineering MacGyver-themed event to promote women in engineering, USC reported that President Obama was kept briefed on efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals of women. As for its own track record, Google recently updated its Diversity page, boasting that "21% of new hires in 2015 were women in tech, compared to 19% of our current population"....
Morons (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Informative)
As usual, we can get the answer from The Simpsons:
It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh...you're really part of that movement? Hay caramba...
I mean I get it, I've had enough with trigger warnings, safe spaces, unfair campaigns, and the fact that Bruce Jenner can kill somebody, and then proceed to sue one of his victims, but once he gets a sex change suddenly he's a stunning and brave hero. It's all a big load of 100% grade A bullshit.
This alt-right, and the fact that Europe now has 25% of the voting population favoring self-identified fascist parties, I think it's more of a reaction to the
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm not looking for a middle ground between information and disinformation. THAT is the fallacy. Rather, I'm looking for a middle ground between being a pussy and being a dick without resorting to being an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the end, I'd prefer to be a dick because, well, be anything else and you're fucked.
Re: Idiots Rule The World (Score:4, Funny)
Now that's a phallucy !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine going a decade to the past and telling someone that voting Trump is the lesser evil. His response would probably be "Who's he running against, Cthulhu?"
And all you could do is nod slowly...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How so? The other choice is at least as bad, and just perpetuates the problem.
The best choice, IMO, is to vote third-party; if enough people did that, they wouldn't be "third parties" any more. But I can understand someone voting for Trump just to shake things up like a bull in a china shop.
What we really need is an all-new system that allows multiple parties to exist, enabled by a voting system that supports this (i.e., anything besides first-past-the-post).
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake was doing that in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
So his mistake was that he didn't just order a Latte but also had one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to try that if it gets me free slaps. Normally I pay good money to get slapped.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that is really quite simple to answer.
While you keep the general masses divided over issues where they can point the finger at each other as being at fault..
And while you can, as central government, say 'oh no! that is terrible! let me make some new regulations to help' without impacting your own plans..
The sheeple are just so much easier to heard.
Then throw in a nice big serving of 'mass media profit is maximised when content gets an emotional reaction' (just about any reaction will do).
And not to mention a little 'my life is actually very easy and I feel inside I am achieving nothing, but if I yearn for a cause, I am moving the world!'
Does that answer your question?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you notice that this story has been tagged "jews"? It's not Google that is trying to divide the world up or get an emotional reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Google that is trying to divide the world up or get an emotional reaction.
Are you saying it's the jews trying to divide the world up and get emotional reactions?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the people who tagged the story with "jew".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/
Because you think the Bechdel test is a poor measure of female portrayal in movies, or because you don't think having substantial female characters is important?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the Bechdel test is interesting and fairly useful unless / until writers start putting scenes in specifically to satisfy the test. Its only one of many possible tests of course and doesn't by itself provide full information.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesbian porn passes the test. Gravity fails it. And give your definition of substantial.
No one claims the Bechdel test is flawless. But it's a good proxy and relatively unambiguous.
If it really is so terrible at rating female representation in movies then can anyone suggest an alternative?
Re: Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.
Put away your clipboard and stop running a tally on dicks vs vaginas, and what color they are.
If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies and capitalism will make it happen. To date they haven't, because it isn't what they actually want, so stop trying to force your fucking agenda down everyone's throats.
Don't watch movies you don't like. The end. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies
They do.
and capitalism will make it happen.
Oh yes, right X is impossible because the magic pixie dust of capitalism. In other news, every market is perfectly efficient, every consumer is perfectly rational and there is infinite liquidity.
Re: Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
How about some male stereotype tests? Does this movie contain:
A male action hero who isn't good looking?
A male nerd who is good at talking to girls?
A fat guy who isn't the comic relief?
A cop who is happily married?
A gay action hero?
An asian guy who is a stud and doesn't know martial arts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They usually involve three or four hetero couples, all but one who shall be offed in interesting and very inefficient ways.
So just barely, most would be slightly sexist against men since one female frequently survives.....
It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test (Score:4, Insightful)
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo...
Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
It's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo...
Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
It's the only way to be sure.
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original
Re:It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test (Score:5, Insightful)
Read it again. They don't say "female skin is evil".
Generally speaking there are lots of diverse roles for men in movies. All sizes, good looking, average, and they are generally not required to be provided some eye candy for a presumed straight male audience.
On the other hand it really looks like to succeed as a woman in Hollywood you have to be hot and willing to flaunt your sexuality. Nothing wrong with doing that per-se, but when it becomes a virtual requirement...
Re: (Score:2)
Melissa McCarthy would probably disagree. I will admit that women that are not hot and flaunting their sexuality typically only succeed in comedies.
Re: (Score:2)
Movies were an expensive luxury when I was growing up. So, I am not quite sure what effect they would have had on me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
Problem
Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.
Soo...
Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.
Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
It's the only way to be sure.
No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem. I wouldn't think a scene where a woman breastfeeds a baby with boobs and nipple(s) showing to be a problem either but the US puritans do. I don't think full nudity for either men or women is a problem and not even explicit sex scenes (if not done in an obvious pornographic manner).
But almost always sexualizing the female body in combination with the choice of female actors (looks are everything with a fe
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to get the mother-in-law to watch Cagney and Lacey. She refused because the girls are ugly. Chalk it up to 80s fashion or perhaps the fact that was like Steinem's favorite show ever.
This is someone with more education and a more interesting career than Steinem.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you don't like to see movies that cater just to women. Most women don't like to see movies that cater just to guys.
Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Because at the moment, the mass of the intellectually lazy and opportunists took over feminism and are flooding it with all their bad ideas brewed in their authoritarian safe spaces, and as a result, any sort of intelligent act that does actually help women gets buried in a pile of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says they do?
The Bechdel test was "a little lesbian joke in an alternative feminist newspaper." It has helped to promote discussion, but it's never going to provide an answer.
It's like the Drake Equation. That was only ever meant to stimulate discussion. It was never meant to be a practical tool, and anyone who uses it as one is missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason they think "the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs" has anything to do with "how STEM careers have been presented in film and television" instead of the fact that the primary "qualification" being looked for is H1-B eligibility.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bechdel test is a perfect way to judge the portrayal of woman, for example most porn movies pass the test.
Most porn movies fail the test. The test is absurdly simple: to pass, a movie must (1) have at least two named female characters, who (2) have at least one conversation with each other, (3) that is not about men.
Most (non-gay) porn movies pass part 1, very few pass part 2, and pretty much none pass part 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Starting from porn with more than 1 female and at least one male, many if not most pass the Bechdel test because there's generally at least one conversation where they call each other sluts and discuss sex without actually referencing a male or the penis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also hardly ever watch the movie till the end
When I fill up my car with gas, I'll either throw in a couple gallons (I'm on fumes and in a huge hurry) or fill it all the way up. Both of these are examples of me taking what I need before leaving the station. Under no circumstances will I attempt to take all the gas the station has or empty my bank account buying fuel. Once I've got my requisite amount of fuel, it's mission accomplished and I'm outta there. If you're into watching pron for the witty banter and special effects more power to you, but once
Re: Morons (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. It's a religion of and by itself. At the very least it has all the traits usually associated with religious nuttery.
1) Claims the moral high ground.
2) Claims to have the authority on truth.
3) Presents no substantial proof to support their claims.
4) Labels anyone daring to disagree as "evil".
5) Is absolutely unfazed by any kind of logical argument.
Re: Morons (Score:4, Funny)
Are you talking about SJWs, anti-SJWs, MRAs, anti-feminists, liberals, leftists, the alt-right or some other group? I can't tell from that description.
Re: (Score:3)
It was an autobiography.
So THAT'S what he was doing during Benghazi... (Score:4, Funny)
Aha - so THAT'S what he was doing when the terrorists overran Benghazi...
Algorithm leaked (Score:5, Funny)
The only acceptable algorithm the program could give would be:
10 PRINT "THIS SCRIPT PORTRAYS WOMEN POORLY."
20 GOTO 10
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to include a nice MS-DOS Abort? Retry? Fail loop in there for good measure.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a probabalistic algorithm, not a deterministic one. It does not always give the correct answer, but does so with high probability.
Re: (Score:2)
(and by deterministic I mean deterministically gives the correct answer, in the sense that 'while true { print ("sexist"); } is not an effective procedure which always gives the correct answer in finite time and halts, not 'can be implemented on a deterministic machine'.)
Your 'algorithm' has two flaws: first, it loops indefinitely for all inputs, rather than halting for all inputs as an algorithm must, and then sometimes it yields incorrect answers (for example I don't believe Happy Feet does a poor job of
Re: (Score:2)
for example I don't believe Happy Feet does a poor job of portraying women
I don't know man. Some of those lady penguins were pretty damn suggestive, if ya know what I mean.
Re: Algorithm leaked (Score:2)
How do you measure 'womanliness' or for that matter 'manliness'?
The capacity to bear children, and the capacity to impregnate women, respectively. It's pretty simple. Though, simple minded people do try to complicate it beyond that...
Re: (Score:2)
The capacity to bear children, and the capacity to impregnate women, respectively. It's pretty simple.
The only way of actually determining either of those is to literally try to conceive. Infertility is a thing for both men and women, you see. Or is some 8 foot yeti impersonator with a beard large enough to hide his pet bear not manly until he's had kids?
Of course (Score:2, Funny)
I'm certain the results of this experiment will be 100% fair and unbiased in any way, and everyone will agree with the results and come to a greater understanding.
How women are portrayed in movies (Score:5, Interesting)
More beautiful than average, and more extreme in one trait or another.
Re:How men are portrayed in movies (Score:2)
More handsome than average, and more extreme in one trait or another.
Re: (Score:3)
"Jane Got A Gun", a western starring Natalie Portman, is finally streaming on Netflix. Now, there's a move where the woman is not only more beautiful than average, but more extreme in every trait!
Where [bang]! Is [bang]! My [bang]! CHILD [bang]!
Yikes! She sure made me a believer in that character. Actually because Portman is really much more beautiful than average, they wrote that into the script and made it a plot element. Pretty smart.
A very enjoyable movie. I don't care a whistle about gender equality in
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger eyes, bigger heads, longer arms, and etc are what people find pleasing to their eye.
So... anime?
Re:How women are portrayed in movies (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to watch a lot of older movies. Men have been the butt of jokes forever. And there's certainly good reason for it, you make fun of the ones at top not at the bottom.
Though in the past there were some strange oddities, amazingly sexist to very fair and balanced. I saw one about the first female president, a comedy about the husband trying to cope with being number two, and it ended when the president got pregnant and resigned, thus restoring order to the family.
What data will it use, and what assumptions? (Score:3)
I am thinking of that recent Twitter AI that turned into a bigot in less than a day because -- lo and behold -- GIGO. If the output must be that all films must look like the demographic national survey rather than how people tend to cluster, you could end up with no end of weird conclusions and data skews. For example, a film with a minority person in a wheel chair in a leadership role may skew the data more than a gay man. Moreover, let us say for instance, the first film is crap and the second one is good, but because he's beaten up as the film's about gay bashing, then might the latter score worse because he's a portrayed as a victim?
So, how does this work exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
"a software" ? (Score:2)
How many softwares do you have?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Over 9000.
Duh.
More hyper-liberal stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently watched ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Off the rails (Score:2)
Google does what they want, they are a company and pursue what they perceive as their interests (the sick bastards), but government involvement is disturbing as it simply points, yet again..., to an entity that is so far beyond any conceivable mandate that we are dealing with a pure instrument of power, and we better hope the wrong people don't get at the levers (...)
Because here is the rub: Hollywood depiction of women is, in the aggregate, whatever the fuck the movie watching wants it be, generally, so th
Re: (Score:3)
here is the rub: Hollywood depiction of women is, in the aggregate, whatever the fuck the movie watching wants it be
Not at all, you're greatly underestimating the influence of the major movie studios. Americans fork out their $12 tickets and watch pretty much whatever Hollywood shoves down their throat. Assuming Hollywood creates movies based on a democratic and unbiased worldview of the aggregate U.S. viewing public is incredibly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
'Not at all' is as naive as your depiction of my belief:
"Hollywood creates movies based on a democratic and unbiased worldview of the aggregate U.S. viewing public"
That's an overstatement. Hollywood is in the aggregate trying to get people to watch. There output is a model. Not perfect or even very good, but that's what it is. Government has no legitimate mandate to be 'studying' it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because here is the rub: Hollywood depiction of women is, in the aggregate, whatever the fuck the movie watching wants it be,
Seems unlikely.
Hollywood's general depiction of women is whatever they *believe* will make money. In fact their depiction of just about everything is whatever they believe will make money. Why else do you think we have so many sequels, prequels and reboots? Oh and yet another identikit ensemble cast sperhero movie.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. We can only with with models and proxies. What Hollywood believes people want to to see in the aggregate is probably the best model we have for what people want to see. They have the most data, and the most interest and the most experience in that field of inquiry. Yes, they do their pet projects, but those projects probably more closely track the views of our enlightened betters in D.C.
But the point is the same, this government mission to bring the governed in line with the prevailing notion
Re: (Score:3)
Because here is the rub: Hollywood depiction of women is, in the aggregate, whatever the fuck the movie watching wants it be
No it's not. The Hollywood depiction of...everything...is whatever the writers and studio execs want it to be. For a long, long time the values of Hollywood and the values of the people in the flyover states have not been congruent at all. In Hollywood Christianity is bad, gays are good, blacks are doctors, the criminals are white, and everybody screws on the first date and no problems result from this. That ain't how they do things in Oklahoma.
Bechdel Test (Score:5, Insightful)
All this talk about the Bechdel test reminds me of the Galbrush Paradox [thisisvideogames.com], a related mess that was codified during GamerGate. During a discussion of noted con artist Anita Sarkeesian -- who has managed to run TWO wildly successful Kickstarter scams stealing close to half a million dollars from rubes -- and her completely unobtainable standards for female characters:
And when applied to film, this is why the Bechdel test fails. Because writing female characters is an identity politics minefield, and trying to give them any character development other than talking about the characters you ARE allowed to take risks with or write as less than perfect gets you in trouble with idiots writing for The Mary Sue or Jezebel, who then rile up a lynch mob at you.
Re: (Score:2)
noted con artist Anita Sarkeesian
Nice accusation you've got going there. Got any evidence?
Nah of course you haven't!
Re:Bechdel Test (Score:5, Funny)
Aside of her collecting money for movies she didn't make, and then ask for more dough? Nope.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean these videos [youtube.com], the ones that more than fulfil her original Kickstarter promises, and all the stretch goals, and a bonus season 2 of shorter videos and game reviews?
Tropes vs Women is one of the few times that a Kickstarter campaign massively exceeded its goals and then actually delivered.
Re: (Score:3)
Aside of her collecting money for movies she didn't make, and then ask for more dough? Nope.
Her kickstarter promised create five 10-20 minute videos. I believe that was bumped to 12 as more funding poured in. So far, she has produced 14 videos and it's still going. A bit of sampling suggests they're more like 20-30 minuted in length.
IOW you're simply lying about her.
Re:Bechdel Test (Score:5, Insightful)
She made some "tropes vs women" videos. Then had a kickstarter to make "Trops vs Women in videogames" initially promising 5 videos of length 10-20 minutes. After receiving $160,000 instead of the requested $6000, she bumped it up to 12 videos, of which she has made 14 of a longer length than promised and it appears that production is still continuing so there will likely be more.
But anyway because you consider yourself a rationalist, I invite you to back up your assertion. Provide evidence. And I don't mean random partisan blog posts. You can see the kickstarter page. I bet the wayback machine has older copies too.
If there's actual real evidence, not wishful thinking from the blogosphere, you can find it.
You have made the claim of fraud, it is up to you to back up that claim with evidence.
I don't however expect you to trouble yourself with such trivial matters of backing up allegations. I expect you to change tack or move the goalposts and start complaining about something else she did (e.g. having an opinion you dislike on the games themselves), leaving your unfounded claim of fraud just dangling there in the breeze.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider Guybrush Threepwood, start of the Monkey Island series. He's weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. He is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.
I don't think you have actually played that game.
Guybrush is full of bravado. He becomes an expert sword fighter early in the game, beating the Sword Master (who happens to be female). He becomes a captain about mid way through, owning his own boat that he bought with his own money from Stan the used boat salesman. He manages to round up a crew, he's fearless (even if it's due to shear recklessness much of the time).
And yes, he is a comical idiot at times. He has romantic notions of saving Marley, but she d
"A software" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. How long ago was this hypothetical taking place? I don't recall saying anything like that lately, but back in the late 90s, I saw a story about a self-driving Linux car... That was an interesting news.
(For you 12 digit UID kids, back in the 90s, Linux was new and cool. Oh, and 90s cars wouldn't stop themselves to avoid a brick wall, much less cruise around town on their own.)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because it's very rare to see an interesting news on slashdot most days.
Re: (Score:2)
Calibration? (Score:2)
Seriously, we have the government we deserve (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia has INVADED and IS OCCUPYING a neighboring country (one they laughingly signed a note to protect, no less).
China is essentially playing Age of Empires 2 in the South China sea, grabbing territory by building watchtowers and not giving a fuck about what anyone thinks.
The EU is disintegrating as people start to realize manually bolting countries together doesn't actually make them act like a single country.
Our economy is a sham based on completely phony numbers, contrived to enrich a tiny cadre of elites that drift in and out of power (always making more money with each step) like minglers at a garden party.
Our media is essentially a giant cumrag, soaked and dripping with the lowest-common-denominator vulgarity and venality.
We have one candidate for president that is a COMPLETE ASS and a know nothing buffoon who's like a cartoon character of himself, while the other candidate is corrupt to the very soul of her being, if she HAD a soul.
And what we're worrying about is whether films fairly represent women?
Where the fuck are the Visigoths to come climbing over OUR walls? Seriously, it's about time. If Rome was like this near the end, they probably welcomed it.
Re: (Score:3)
We are allowed to worry about more than one thing at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the fuck are the Visigoths to come climbing over OUR walls? Seriously, it's about time. If Rome was like this near the end, they probably welcomed it.
Those would be the Mexicans and the Muslims.
Interesting to quantify if possible (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be very interesting to find a way to quantify bias in media. I don't know if its possible, but it sounds hard. OTOH, self-driving cars sounded hard as well and they seem to be becoming a reality.
Last time I posted a req for a high level RF engineer, I got ~100 applications from men and 2 from women. If only for selfish reasons I'd like more women learning the skills that I need.
I've been working in a high tech field for a quarter century now and I do see a problem the way women are treated in many places. The problems are not universal, and there is a lot of variety, but it exists. It difficult to separate cause and effect but more information would be helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
I know a number of women in tech careers and they quite enjoy them. Its true that some people like to pick on nerds, true nerds couldn't care less what "normasl" think of them. Some fields like physics and math seem to have done better than others at attracting women and it would be interesting to know why.
Re: (Score:2)
That is certainly true, but a different problem. Too many people will create resumes targeted at specific jobs in the hopes of getting an interview, even though they don't have even the basic skills required. I don't know if there is any statistical difference in how often women do this.
BS research... (Score:2)
Welcome to capitalism, bitches (Score:3)
It's simple as that: If movies with women in lead roles attract audiences, they will be made. If not, well, then not.
A few might have heard about the Ghostbusters reboot. Well? How did it fare? Erh... yeah. It did mostly recover its production cost. Did it recover its total cost including advertising? Probably not. Will it ever? It looks doubtful.
In the end, what counts is the bottom line. Michael Bay makes horrible movies. Scripts that fit on a legal page, and since film isn't being developed anymore, you can't even make that joke about character development in his movies anymore. They are, by and large, crap. But they sell. Flashy effects and gimmicks is what the audience wants and that's what the audience gets, and his movies are one success after the next.
Like it, hate it, in the end, what matters is just the bottom line. Not the message, not the lasting value, not how much you wish to "empower" or "liberate" anyone or anything, people don't give a shit about this. They want to be entertained when they go into a movie.
And movie studios don't give a shit about your message or agenda either. They want your movie to make money.
My one-liner: (Score:2)
def IsThisMovieSexist(movie):
return True
Won't be accurate for all movies, but gets the answer right with a high degree of probability.
And what if they find there is no problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Stereotype" = shortcut/heuristic (Score:2)
Jobs Are Jails (Score:4, Insightful)
And maybe at that point we can ask if we could find a better use of our time than endless jobs, shopping, commuting, television...
Jobs are generally miserable, but the biggest misery is (1) you are judged on appearances (2) while doing work that is most of the time not essential or not really a positive contribution in any sense.
It's like something Solzhenitsyn would come up with. The prisoners count beans and file TPS reports, and if they do not, they get half the ration of borscht for the day.
Were you not informated? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French.